About your Search

20120517
20120517
SHOW
( more )
STATION
CSPAN3 34
MSNBC 23
MSNBCW 23
SFGTV2 21
CNN 16
CNNW 16
FOXNEWS 12
SFGTV 9
CNBC 7
CSPAN2 7
KGO (ABC) 7
WHUT (Howard University Television) 7
KPIX (CBS) 6
KQED (PBS) 5
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 280
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 280 (some duplicates have been removed)
in relations between russia and the united states there, have been many successes, including the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, cooperation on afghanistan, iran, and north korea. civilian nuclear power, and other areas. but there have been notable differences over syria, missile defense, human rights, enforcement of intellectual property rights and con dufkt elections last month. both president put spin and president obama have called for a deepening of economic cooperation between the two countries. the russian state duma its expected to ratify russia's succession to the wto in june or july. we expect 30 days after that, roughly, that russia will become a member of the world trade organization. for the united states, to take advantage of the new market openings in the russian market, congress must pass legislation to grant russia permanent normal trade relations treatment. the panel today will focus on prospects for improving relations with russia, and how the wto process has prompted russia to take measures to open its economy, to more international trade and investment. we had timed this pa
two times the united states has hosted nato summits were in 1978 and 1999 which, of course, was the 50th anniversary during president clinton's term. as i've said, 61 countries as well as the eu, the united nations and the world bank will be in attendance. they'll be a different grouping, if you will, of countries during the course of the day. as i said, the president will fly to chicago on saturday evening. the first meeting that he'll have on sunday will be with president karzai of afghanistan. obviously, an important meeting because a central focus of the summit will be on afghanistan and afghanistan's future. so the first meeting of the day appropriately is going to be with president karzai of afghanistan. the president will then move into various, a series of nato immediatings. initial meeting with just the nato allies at 28. that evening, on sunday evening, the nato allies will meet at soldier field for a working dinner and that will be leaders plus one adviser. on monday morning, the summit will continue at mccormick place with discussions on afghanistan and this will be a broad
anything provocative. even if it the united states doesn't could that, i worry the europeans would do that and more so the chinese, the russians and others. so we cannot allow that to happen. if iran is going to continue enriching during this process, we have to continue ratcheting up the sanctions. otherwise we're in a losing scenario here. >> nick? >> warren, i think the problem in both democratic and republican administrations in the past is that we haven't believed in diplomacy enough to give it a real try. every administration from jimmy carter to reagan on through to barack obama has had one or two disyou will tree meetings with the iranians in some conference room in vienna or geneva and that's it. so here's the problem for us. we're in an overheated political environment, we're in an election year. and some people will want to set up a construct that if the president doesn't succeed within a month or two, he'll have failed. and that's not in our interest. we've got to have more patience, and a longer-term strategic view. so i would say, commit ourselves to a serious bout of di
trade of the united states. and less than 2 point something of russian foreign trade. which suggests in turn that neither united states nor russia are to each other an important economic partner. just for example with our neighbor in ukraine our trade is 20% higher. with eu it is -- it is almost ten times hyper. -- ten times higher. so what it means, it means we are missing a good economic underpinning for political relations. and that leaves them still vulnerable to the politics of the day, to the crisises of the day, and, and unnecessarily so. we certainly have a lot of things that we have in common in terms of challenges that we face. and i, once drew a list of things that unite us. it appears much longer. we don't see eye to eye. and i would submit important for russia and hopefully for the united states. we have progress aid lot through the last three years. reset has brought a lot of new things, a lot of new way of doing things. the commission that was established by the two presidents seems to be producing new ideas, new avenues for, for cooperation, both between the
disposal but will continue to ensure that its military a trained and will be working with the united states in that particular area. many other examples of this exist and i think the hope is that as we identify this brigade in the united states that will be rotating battalions to europe. possibly twice annually, although we're still working on the frequency of that, that will also be a way to enhance training in the alliance answer a new u.s. contribution to the nato response force and, again, we can get into those details in the q&a. i fear i've spoken too long already. i'm going to leave it at that and turn it over to the next person on the panel. thank you. >> julianne, thank you very much for rapidly going through what is a packed agenda, when you, start to look at these issues and it's very difficult in the time you have. you were very generous i think as well to describe britain's future defense struggles as a bell curve and i think within the u.k. they've been described as kind of black hole around $35 billion worth of defense expenditures which have been pushed into the future, beca
in russia. whether united states gives us pn it tr or not, it is not something that we want to continue for several republics. first, we want americans to be our good partners. secondly, politically, it is one of the vestiges of the cold war mentality still with us and spoils political environment for the reasons which one cannot even explain today because the reasons why jackson/vanek appeared in the first place, how it was wrong even at that time, are no longer. so what is left as a vestige of the cold war still with us and reflections of a wider problem in our relations, and the cold war mentality that sometimes still persists as one of my american colleagues said to me we have victims of the post cold war hangover, which is right. very frequently we judge each other through this that had been developed and not through the commonality of purpose that we have today. it is extremely important. we want to work with the americans. we want to do business with the americans. we want you to be present in the russian market. we stand to benefit from partnership with american companies like o
in the region. this supreme leader built an -- towards the united states. so if you are assessing american interests and looking at the region, you have to look at what iran's behave hear been towards american interests over time. i can say this, actually, even though you're asking me to assume a different persona, back in the 1990s when i was a negotiator in the middle east, we were constantly contending with iranian-inspired efforts to subvert the peace process through acts of terror. so there's a history here of being hofstile towards american interests. we have seen different iranian leaderships 24r50e69 leaderships at least in the forms of their presidents, talking about a dialogue of civilizations and the possibilities of trying to find ways of building bridges between the two sides. he was clearly not able to deliver very much. if anything at all. so i think we have to look at iran through a lens of hostility and threats. i think we also have to look at iran through a lens that, their behave hear, from time to time, been adjusted tactical. not strategically but tactically when, in f
if you look at the successful record of immigrants to the united states, whether skilled or unskilled, documented or undocumented, across the last 200 years and particularly in the last 25 years and with the great renaissance of data that we now have at our disposal to analyze more clearly the impact of all types of immigration from 1990 forward, we realize that immigrants, again, skilled and unskilled, lawful and undocumented, bring to the effort of community building and business building and economy building something that is moderately intangible for now. if we work at it for a few more years it will be tangible and we will be able to quantify part of it. it's something that represents itself in generational achievement both for those immigrants who arrive, who form small businesses at a rate which is disproportionately higher than native-born citizens, for their children that in turn achieve at a level that is higher on average than the children of native-born citizens, not to disparage those who come from the united states or come from long lines of families that come from the u
.s. born workers in the united states from the 1990's to 2005 were better off because of the immigrant, both documented and undocumented, presence in the united states. their earnings were enhanced by about 2.7%. why? it's complicated and i'll send a link to the commission so you can look at the exciting charts and graphs and do that to your heart's desire. it comes down to a simple idea which is intuitive and you know it. the economy is not a fixed pie. when you expand the labor curve, a simple economist will say the price of labor goes down and we're all hurt. the more people that work here, the more people that are chasing jobs and we're all doomed. wrong. the expansion of the available labor force creates opportunities that did not exist before. you have innovation and entrepreneurialism that increases the actual size of small and medium-sized businesses. they consume and that expands the demand curve. you have a dynamic economy for 90% of u.s. born workers that enhances their wages. the other 9% got whacked up side the head with globalization and immigration and everything you can
.se it really is a question of thestioof future economic policy of the united states. un that's what we're talking aboutre here today. tay i just. heard the republican leader say there is no budget. i really -- i don't know how to say this.es sometimes i wonder if colleagues pay attention to what they're here. voting on here. last in here in august we didn't pass a budget resolution pass a budget resolution. instead, we passed in a resolution is purely a congressional it never goes toresident the president for his signature has to pass both bodies and be signed by the president. last year, instead of a budget resolution, we did a budget law called the budget control act. the budget control act set the budget for the next two years for this year and next. more than that, it set ten years of spending caps, saving $900 billion. madam president in addition, the budget control act gave a special committee the authority to reform the tax system and the entitlement system of the country and it said if you come to an agreement special committee, your action cannot be filibustered. you have to
want to see that as a mandate for the next president of the united states to push the congress to pass that kind of a balanced budget amendment out of the house and send to the state for ratification. that's the only way we can get to a point to get this country back on the fiscal track again. >> next call, buffalo, new york, debbie, independent line. >> caller: how you doing this morning? >> good morning, debbie. >> caller: i have two questions. one has to do with the import export bank owned by the clintons. you people just gave them $140 billion and you're complaining about jpmorgan and $2 billion? >> so what about the ex and imbank? >> i voted against the export/import bank because of some of the things i think were in the tone of your message, debbie. we have to start making decisions about what this federal government has to do versus what the government might have chose ton do in better economic times. along the way, the house of representatives has seen a growing core of constitutional and fiskcal conservatives lookig for places to put up a vote and send a message say weg can g
the years the united states and other democratic countries have imposed sanctions on the burmese government to pressure for change. now that there seems to be some progress at what pace should those sanctions be lifted? how does the u.s. provide rewards for progress without losing he have arerage for further change? >> i understand from a news broadcast this morning that senator mccain is thinking of the suspension of sanctions rather than lifting of sanctions. it possible first step. what has been done at the e.u., what has been done by the e.u., they would suspend sanctions but not lift them all together. that is a way sending a strong message that we will help the process of democratization. if this is not maintained we will have this think of other ways of making sure that the aspirations of people of burma for democracy is respected. i am am not against the suspension of sanctions as long as the people of the united states feel this is the right thing to do at the moment. i do, i do have a caution though. i sometimes feel that things, people are too optimistic about the scene in burma.
government and the united states government but not ratified. if i'm -- if that's true, is that not true? >> no. >> i would like to know the status. >> i will repeat. i will answer very briefly. we have been offering to our american colleagues the idea of sitting together and developing this agreement because absence of such agreement is big handicap for development of long-term relations. and the american colleagues was that they were rethinking the strategic approach to that kind of agreement not supplied to russia but most probably as applied to the rest of the world. my sense is that our american colleagues are now a little bit more ready to engage and we are looking forward to that. >> we should have a bilateral investment treaty and negotiations and the administration just finally came up with its model that so maybe we can engage with russia and a number of other countries on the negotiations. >> okay. let me just before you get back to that, that's fine. i will try to address your question and anyone can jump in. i am sure our official representatives will be thrilled to do so. o
for the united states not -- >> technical term. >> very highly technical term, beat i beating around the bush. but there are two problems. one, this is a campaign year here. so getting congressmen and senators to make a vote that would be viewed by many as doing something positive for russia when in fact it's doing something positive for the united states is a challenge. and two, while the economic argument is clear, this is not just going to be about an economic argument. i think this is going to be a broad referendum about russia. and that takes us back to the realm of our ambassadors. that, you know, what is the argument to make about, i think there's a very strong argument to make about how improved relations with the russian federation have in fact served the u.s. national interest, and russian national interest. john, how would you characterize that argument in a nutshell that would put this in a different light? >> well, i think it's clear that we, the united states, want to see a strong democratic -- a strong democratic russia that has an economy that's producing for its people. that'
: the clerk will report. the clerk: pule j.watford of california to be united states judge for the ninth circuit. mr. reid: madam president, i ask -- let's see. i have a cloture motion. i want that reported, please. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. clerithe clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on nomination of paul j. wattford of california to be the united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. reid: madam president, i would ask that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask, madam president, the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate resumes legislative session. mr. reid: and what is the pending business? the presiding officer: the motion to proceed to s
,000 more since i said that. that may not be a crisis to the treasury secretary of the united states but it is to a rising senator in the united states, governor romney already hitting hard on the issue in florida to a second day and new to one of his potential running mates weighing in on it today. florida republican senator rubio addressing the issue a short time ago with me in this exclusive chat. >> there was a crisis that the guy doesn't think there is one. the president's budget who he worked for what voting down 99-0. not even the democrats would vote if the democrats' budget and the senate democrats have not offered a budget in 3 1/2 years. do people understand what i have just explained? the democrats in washington that control the senate have not offered a budget in 3 1/2 years, almost four years now. this government spends close to $10 trillion since the budget basketball last passed. so, for those that do not like the ryan budget, where is that budget? where is harry reid's budget and the democrats in the senate budget? i understand that at the end of the day to get a bud
the top counterterrorism threat to the nation. aqap has attempted several attacks on the united states in 2009 and 2010. we are currently exploiting an ied seized overseas which is similar to explosive devices used by aqap in the past. we also remain concerned about the threat from homegrown violent extremists. these individuals have no typical profile. their experience and motives are often distinct which make them difficult to find and difficult to stop. that may me turn next to counterintelligence. while we still confront additional s.b. notch, today's spies are students, researchers, business people or operators of front companies. they seek not only state secrets but also trade secrets, intellectual property and insider information from government, businesses and american universities. we are also seeing a growing insider threat. that is when employees use their legitimate access to steal secrets for the benefit of another company or another country. and of course the counterintelligence is now merging with the cyberthreat. so much sensitive data is stored on computer networks and
between the united states and afghanistan. not an agreement between individuals. it's a national agreement. entered into because it was in interests of the united states and afghanistan. the first thing. the second thing is that it is obligations on both sides. which we would seek to being implemented. obligations on the u.s. side and on the afghan side. >> okay. stephen and then we'll let tom go. >> how concerned is the u.s. that the continuing budget cuts and austerity in europe could have nato to xct act in the fut in a situation like libya? and growth in europe. do you expect any actions that could impact the economy, the european economy in a short term and obviously an effect on the u.s. economy? >> actions in what context? >> actions on growth rather than simply talking about how growth is an important factor. >> okay. with respect to nato and the way forward, one of the sessions indeed the first alliance session will be devoted to nato capabilities. and they have, the nato allies have undertaken a study over the last two years focused on those capabilities that if believes are esse
republican seat. she will be a terrific general election candidate and a great addition to the united states senate. >> caller: she is running against a war hero, bob kerry, who is very popular. so this will be fascinating. >> it is interesting, the polls shower, even as not well known as she was, beating kerry handily, in large part because he has spent the better part of a decade, living in new york city, contemplating a run for mayor in new york city. that's not a good way to get favor in nebraska. >> greta: coming up, vice-president joe biden gets very loud. what got him so riled up? you have to hear the fiery speech. next. obamacare or no care? some college students are going to end up with no insurance. and the university president says the president's health care law is to blame. preliminary rivals or frenemmies. chris christie is teaming up with a democratic mayor. what is the duo up to? you have to see it to believe it. you do not want to miss this. what makes sam adams boston lager great is as simple as abc. a, the appearance. amber. [ jim ] b, balance. sam adams has malt sweetness
speaking for himself and not the president of the united states. >> david axelrod tweeted this "what vp said that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights is precisely the position." >> jon: hash tag bieber just a refresm. he said it's the position because vp said hash tag gay marriage good lol. it's probably not as simple as vp and potus have same position. jay carney. >> let me be clear. the vice president said what the said about the protection of rights with citizens is consistent with the president's position on this issue. the president has spoken about this. the president is the right person to describe his own personal views. he, as you know said his views on this were evolving. >> jon: ah. [ laughter ] so with regards to gay marriage the vice president's new position is consistent with the president's position which has not changed and is also changing. [ laughter ] that's not a social policy that's a zen cone. mr. carney -- >> it is as it was, yes. [ laughter ] >> jon: it is as it was. [ laughter ] and what master is the sound of one man sweating? and why
't dream. my mother believed and my father believed that if i wanted to be president of the united states, i could be. i could be vice president. my mother and father and believed that if my brother and sister wanted to be a millionaire, they could be a millionaire. my mother and father dreamed as much as any rich guy dreams. >> absolutely. >> any don't get it! they don't get who we are. >> good morning. it's thursday, may 17th. >> who was that? >> that was the vice president of the united states. >> i don't get it. >> what do you mean you don't get it? >> i don't get who they are. i'm joking. of course, i get who joe is. >> i get who joe is. >> i am joe. joe is me. >> yes, you are. >> all right. >> you're confused. >> i'm back we have. we have jim cramer on the set running into 30 rock this morning scurrying around in circles going where is the "wall street journal." he looked like he needed a fix. >> mike, you hung out with baseball on us last night. >> baseball owners and bob bowman and who we were talking about who created and developed mlb-tv, which is just spectacular. >> spectacula
their investors get a return on their investment. but that's not the job of a president of the united states of america. the job is much bigger than that. [ applause ] the job of the president of the united states is help business m businessmen. businessmen and women, small and large who have to worry about everything from environmental controls to whether the street is paved to all the things that affect their ability to do business. and our view it's government's job to not run their business but help them. help them have an opportunity to have the best infrastructure so that a road to which you can drive up to buy the automobile, and by the way, parenthetically, imagine, imagine if our republican friends hadn't stopped us from our infrastructure bill, imagine if we were rebuilding the roads and bridges in the valley that needed to be built? how many thousands and thousands of jobs would be created and how much that would increase the productivity of every business in the valley. that's government's job. is to help people who are looking for jobs, to look out for the entire nation, not jus
as an officer in the united states air force. after 26 years at the c.i.a. and national security council, he became president of texas and, a, many university. in 2006, president george w. bush appointed him sex tear of defense succeeding donald rumsfeld. under his watch, gates oversaw iraq's troop surge. president-elect obama asked him to stay in the job. he became the first defense secretary to serve both a republican and democratic president. in the obama administration he played a pivotal role in shaping u.s. policy in afghanistan. he was a key player in the decision to send additional forces into the country. he was at the center of the debate on the raid to kill osama bin laden last may. gates stepped down as defense secretary in june, 2011. here is what president obama said at gates' farewell ceremony. >> what you see is a man that i've come to know and respect. a humble american patriot. a man of common sense and decency. quite simply one of our nation's finest public servants. >> reporter: i talked with bob gates in williamsburg virginia at the college of william & mary where he acc
." senator schumer says, he doesn't buy that. >> he wants to de-friend the united states of america just to avoid paying taxes. we are not going to let him get away with it. the senators want to ban entrepreneurs like the facebook co-founder from getting back into the united states if they tried doing the country if the tax breaks and lawmakers are proposing a new bill to make it happen. 9 chief fox correspondent jonathan hunt is in the studio on the lead story, so, what would this bill go, exactly? >>jonathan: it is called the, patriot act. what were you saying? this is hardly exciting after that drama. but it is calmed the ex-patriot act and under the rules if the i.r.s. decided this facebook co-founder or indeed anyone like him is renouncing their citizenship for tax purposes, then in future they have to pay 30 percent capital gains tax on any investments they have not united states. that person would also be bound from ever coming back into the united states. the united states even for business purposes or a visit to disneyland and senator schumer made this very personal at press con
the presidential e award for increasing u.s. exports and bringing that money and jobs here to the united states. of course, we're in southern california, so we are but one ocean away from a china. rather large ocean. of course, 3 million american jobs have been lost to that nation during the past decade, 2 million of them in manufacturing alone. and all those items that we import from china and buy into our country support as many as 20 million jobs in china. good for chinese government political security unless they have a big unemployment problem, my goodness. better that we have that. but it seems china's tide may be turning. new research shows american companies are making big plans to bring manufacturing jobs back home. the new term reshoring. and according to the hackett group which follows these trends, they're saying u.s. companies are looking to reshoring 20% of their manufacturing during the next 40 years. but the repatriation of jobs and the money that comes with it are not happening because of u.s. policies, in fact, it's happening despite them. it's happening because of chinese pol
the negotiations. chief participants in the united states and the eight other nations wrapped up the trans pacific partnership on wednesday in texas. >> we have made better than expected progress here this week. we plan to move full steam ahead and hope to take another major step toward conclusion of the agreement at this round in july. >> the chief u.s. negotiator said the countries reported their individual consultations with japan, canada and mexico about their participation in tpp talks. they all agreed to continue the consultations. the discussions on tariffs are stalled. it remains unclear if the negotiations will be concluded by the end of the year as the u.s. hopes. >>> more business for you next hour. i'll leave you with the latest market figures. >>> japan and china have agreed to work together on maritime issues in a bid to avoid further conflicts in the east china sea. it follows disputes including a 2010 collision between a chinese trawler and the japanese coast guard. it came among talks in eastern china on wednesday. around 50 officials from both side took part. both sides claimed s
or the united states. mexico has lost one of its most important than one of its most critical voices. with the current difficulties in the country, many feel his loss will be keenly felt. >> two patients who have been paralyzed from the neck down have been allowed to use robotics that brings electrical signals into command. an engineer involved with the project ran us through how it worked. this sensor, it says 96 tiny electrodes on this platform. this is tapped into the top of the brain to a part of the brain called the motor cortex. it is very important for the voluntary control of the arm and hand. the motor cortex is disconnected from the rest of the body in such diseases and disorders such as stroke or spinal cord injury. so we take this sensor, which is resting in the motor cortex for each of these electrodes can record neural signals, brain cell activity associated with the intended movement of the hand. we then record those neural signals. it goes down through some fine wires to in the pedestal for a slug that sits on top of the head. during the research session, there's a ca
it to be nato providing that system, not simply the united states moving ahead with the epaa. the nato system is anticipated to bring more to the table than the epaa. the epaa is, no question, the core of nato missile defense, but i think the vision is that over time, countries will be able to add on capabilities to it. we now have a situation where we have countries coming forward with contributions. the netherlands has indicated that it will be upgrading some of its frigates to add missile defense radar. germany will be contributing patriots. different countries are trying to figure out, france is working on early warning. ways in which they can contribute to the system, but the commitment was made in lisbon. we now have reached phase one of the epaa, the u.s. contribution to the system, and, again, we will declare this capability interim capable at the summit in chicago. >> i'd like to warn those who -- who use this obesity analogy that, that's a very, very dangerous path to go down. if we look back to the last 20 years, my big concern is that actually we have started spending piece divide
for the united states, its partners, and allies around the world to also focus on the nonsecurity aspects of this. that is when you have a drop in security expenditures, which will happen when isaf finishes its mission at the end of 2014, the goal is to have a sustainable economy going forward, and that's an important focus for us the next 2 1/2 years. a couple things on this. we have a comprehensive approach, and we are working on this now as evidenced by this discussion years in advance to try to put in place the building blocks that can achieve the goals that i laid out. by the way, we also want to have, you know, a solid political transition in afghanistan. there will be elections for president in the middle of 2014, and it's important obviously that the afghans put in place a sustainable political process as well going forward. we also want to get to a place where we achieve our core goal, and our core goal is a strategic defeat of al qaeda. the defeat of al qaeda such that it no longer presents a threat to the united states, our allies, or our other interests. this has been a central part o
votes in the united states senate but failed. common cause believes that the filibuster is not only unconstitutional, but the filibuster has add to the partisanship that we see in washington. we filed in the federal courts. while the constitution does give the senate and the house the right to set their own rules, we have pointed out in our litigation that points in history where the courts have said, yes, you have a right to make your own rules and to live by them, but they can't be unconstitutional. >> eliot: now look, as i said, and i've said it many times in the show i'm sympathetic to the notion that the filibuster has been overused abused, i would like to eliminate it and see pure majority rule in the house and the senate. the constitution does permit and require were majority votes for certain votes like overriding the president's veto, impeachment, situations like that. the constitution recognizes some instance where is the super majority is required. do you go from there and then it says do you therefore say it's implying that in our instances there isn't and can't be an ob
% of consumption in the united states, the lion's share of that, 45% of total consumption was in passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. what do we do about that gas guzzling that is going on? the thing we do is to look at how we can change how many miles to the gallon we get. and two, -- and to the president's credit, his administration has put in place these new standards, known to all of us as cafe standards that will double the u.s. efficiency of fleet of automobiles averaging a fleet-wide average of 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025. what does that do once we get there in 2025? that means we as consumers will save $1.7 trillion at the pump over the life of the program. a family that purchases a new vehicle in 2025 will save $8,200 in fuel costs when compared with a similar vehicle in 2010. so the life of the program, the standard will save 12 billion barrels of oil and eliminate 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution. the solutions are there for us. the solutions are we move to these cafe standards and address the issues around speculation and we keep the robust doing that is
to him. >> eduardo saverin wants to de-friend the united states of america just to avoid paying taxes. and we aren't going to let him get away with it. >> shepard: senator schumer are announcing legislation called the expatriot act. it would apply to anybody who has had to pay an average of $148,000 in income taxes. folks within that group who have renounced their citizenship in the last decade would have to prove they didn't do it just to avoid paying taxes. if they fail, the acted would flap a heavy tax on future u.s. investments and prevent them from ever again returning to the united states of america. the fox business network's peter barnes is live in washington. peter, this facebook co-founder's representative says is he going to pay everything he owes but it's not clear exactly what that means. >> well, shep, he does not get out of jail free. under existing tax law, saverin has to pay something called an exit tax, which everybody pays when they give up their u.s. citizenship. that would likely be 15% capital gains taxes on the value of his assets on the day before he renounced
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 280 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)